NBA poll best NBA player of all time

Quote:

---

I think your view on how to compare them is valid, but I feel 'the best' would mean in any era could said player dominate.

---

By that logic, no argument can ever be made that Babe Ruth was 'the best' ever because no way could he dominate todays game. Same with Wilt. MJ at his best, could dominate todays game albeit not nearly as much as Wilt did, but could MJ dominate 50 years from now? And he can't, then I guess he can't be the best........by the logic listed above of course.

Boom hit it dead on. I use this argument for baseball....all steriods aside, pound for pound Bonds is by far the best offensive player ever to play the game. I shouldn't say by far, AROD is close and will maybe surpass Bonds one day, but other than those two its really not close. Todays players and the game are eons better than it was in Ruths era. Does anyone really think that Ruth would be a great talent in todays game??? That said, Ruth dominated his era to a much greater degree than Bonds has his. So Ruth is the most dominant ever to play the game.

MJ very possibly is the best ever to play basketball, but he's not the most dominant ever. I'd go with Wilt on that one. And one has to be real here...Kobe is every bit as dominant today as MJ was in his day. Time will tell if he has the longevity however to rival MJ as the best ever. Everyone wants to annoint Lebron, he's got a ton of talent but isn't as dominant as Kobe is at this point in his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

The future argument makes no sense, we can't say the best is someone who isn't here yet. Era for era, Babe was the most valuable, arguably, but in point of view, no, not the best.

I have a different view on the 'best' and you aren't gonna change my just like I won't change yours. Attacking my position with 'well someone better is going to come along' isn't really viable.

Besides, the question was 'who was the best', which to me implies most gifted and skilled, period. To you it doesn't. I don't think either of us are wrong. That's the beauty of subjectiveness.

---

Well, you and I are pretty much in agreement. The 'best' ever is the player who was the most gifted, talented, skilled, of alltime and w/o question in baseball its Bonds and in basketball I'd still go for Jordan. Now the most dominant ever was Ruth and Wilt.

The 'best' is always going to be a modern great however because historically players over eras get quicker, faster, stronger, bigger. Unless the curve peaks, the best is always yet to come.

You have to admit, even though we have the same view of the meaning of 'best', even our definition is flawed. One could argue our definition means that say Francisco Liriano is one of if not the 'best' pitcher of alltime. He was probably the most dominant pitcher for that short stretch as I've ever seen in this the most talented era. So does that mean he's the 'best' ever? Obviously longevity has to play into the argument. Being the most gifted, skilled and talented isn't always enough.

[QUOTE=dickay;973587]By that logic, no argument can ever be made that Babe Ruth was 'the best' ever because no way could he dominate todays game. Same with Wilt. MJ at his best, could dominate todays game albeit not nearly as much as Wilt did, but could MJ dominate 50 years from now? And he can't, then I guess he can't be the best........by the logic listed above of course.

Boom hit it dead on. I use this argument for baseball....all steriods aside, pound for pound Bonds is by far the best offensive player ever to play the game. I shouldn't say by far, AROD is close and will maybe surpass Bonds one day, but other than those two its really not close. Todays players and the game are eons better than it was in Ruths era. Does anyone really think that Ruth would be a great talent in todays game??? QUOTE]

Why not? Bonds plays in smaller parks. With a shorter mound. With access to all kinds of technology, not even counting steroids. Ruth batted against spitballers (legally pitching it and illegally) against deader balls and balls getting scuffed up and used more. In mammoth ballparks (Not counting Yankee stadiums short porch, I grant you) with people sitting in centerfield bleachers and in almost all day games, if not all.

So why in the world if you moved Ruth forward in time and gave him the same access to technology (workout regimes, better diets, studying pitchers) would he NOT be a great talent?

And who's to say if you moved Bonds back in time (And magically allowed him to play) HE would dominate? He would have no steroids. Very little in the way of workout equipment. I guess he could invent some, and he could still jog of course. He'd have no access to whey/protein shakes and all that ballyhoo. No access to video technology. No body armor and would get hit a lot more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

Why not? Bonds plays in smaller parks. With a shorter mound. With access to all kinds of technology, not even counting steroids. Ruth batted against spitballers (legally pitching it and illegally) against deader balls and balls getting scuffed up and used more. In mammoth ballparks (Not counting Yankee stadiums short porch, I grant you) with people sitting in centerfield bleachers and in almost all day games, if not all.

So why in the world if you moved Ruth forward in time and gave him the same access to technology (workout regimes, better diets, studying pitchers) would he NOT be a great talent?

And who's to say if you moved Bonds back in time (And magically allowed him to play) HE would dominate? He would have no steroids. Very little in the way of workout equipment. I guess he could invent some, and he could still jog of course. He'd have no access to whey/protein shakes and all that ballyhoo. No access to video technology. No body armor and would get hit a lot more.

---

This is my exact point. You can't compare Wilt and MJ without looking at there comtempories. Wilt was probably the most dominate player to ever play this game. That is greatness. Wilt over his comptempories verses MJ over his comtempories. That is why you really can't compare the two side by side. But averaging 50 points per game for a season...dang that is good.

Quote:

---

Why not? Bonds plays in smaller parks. With a shorter mound. With access to all kinds of technology, not even counting steroids. Ruth batted against spitballers (legally pitching it and illegally) against deader balls and balls getting scuffed up and used more. In mammoth ballparks (Not counting Yankee stadiums short porch, I grant you) with people sitting in centerfield bleachers and in almost all day games, if not all.

So why in the world if you moved Ruth forward in time and gave him the same access to technology (workout regimes, better diets, studying pitchers) would he NOT be a great talent?

And who's to say if you moved Bonds back in time (And magically allowed him to play) HE would dominate? He would have no steroids. Very little in the way of workout equipment. I guess he could invent some, and he could still jog of course. He'd have no access to whey/protein shakes and all that ballyhoo. No access to video technology. No body armor and would get hit a lot more.

---

Ruth also played in an era where blacks weren't allowed to play, and many had 2nd jobs that paid MORE than baseball. Baseball was still a game then, it is a profession now. Ruth couldn't take care of himself then when he was the highest paid in the game and if he had could've been much better if you believe all accounts. What makes you think he'd have the drive and determination to compete with the best of today?

And Bonds back in Ruths day...cmon, he woulnd't need all that stuff. He's a professional and those hack arms couldn't keep him in the park. The ball was so much different then, no way it could garner the movement of todays curve balls, even with your tobacco infested spit. Sure mounds were taller, and arms were slower, fastballs weren't mid to upper 90's. Bonds would be banned from the game, not because of steroids but because of domination. :eek:;) But then again, not to toot bonds horn, all of todays players would greatly dominate back then.

Yea, that's most likely. Of course, that's a "put Bonds in a time machine" sort of scenario. There's also the "if [Barry Bonds | Babe Ruth] had been born in the [1910's | 1970's]" scenario (and ignoring skin color, of course). If either player were a contemporary player of the time, I'd think that they would be as dominating as they were in their own time period. Bonds would suffer some from the lack of training and professionalism, and Ruth would benefit from the additional training and professionalism. For players like a Ruth or a Bonds, the increased competativeness of the modern era is likely actually beneficial to them as well.

They are dominating players in different ways too. Ruth is more the prototypical pure power player (I'd compare him more to Big Mac than Bonds really), and Bonds is more of a power through speed and contact type of player (more comparable to Ty Cobb then Ruth, in my opinion). I wouldn't be so sure that if Ruth were a contemporary player that he would be a fielder anyway. I'd think that it would be much more likely for him to remain a pitcher.

You know...I don't know why anyone hasn't thought to take some middle relievers, create fence distances similar to a ballpark back then, raise some mounds and let these guys hurl some dirty wet dead balls to some modern hitters to see how they do...**** let them use period bats if they want too. I'll see if I can email Mythbusters about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Yea, that's most likely. Of course, that's a "put Bonds in a time machine" sort of scenario. There's also the "if [Barry Bonds | Babe Ruth] had been born in the [1910's | 1970's]" scenario (and ignoring skin color, of course). If either player were a contemporary player of the time, I'd think that they would be as dominating as they were in their own time period. Bonds would suffer some from the lack of training and professionalism, and Ruth would benefit from the additional training and professionalism. For players like a Ruth or a Bonds, the increased competativeness of the modern era is likely actually beneficial to them as well.

They are dominating players in different ways too. Ruth is more the prototypical pure power player (I'd compare him more to Big Mac than Bonds really), and Bonds is more of a power through speed and contact type of player (more comparable to Ty Cobb then Ruth, in my opinion). I wouldn't be so sure that if Ruth were a contemporary player that he would be a fielder anyway. I'd think that it would be much more likely for him to remain a pitcher.

---

I think that your analogy about Ruth is a little wrong, bavg/obp/ops
Ruths Averages: .342/474/1.164 league average .285/474/753
Bonds Averages: .298/.444/1.051 league average 263/333/743
Ruth OPS+: 207
Bonds OPS+:182

Ruth was by far the better hitter of the two. Ruth was by far the bigger person of the two as well. Comparing Ty Cobb to Bonds is way off. You would have a better comparison if you compare Cobb to Ichiro. As with Bonds thou, Bonds was a complete player, 5 tool, or whatever you want to call it. So Bonds would be the better player of the two. Now of course we can't go back in time to watch how ruth Fielded. That is only based on repuation. Talent level thou, I think that Ruth could do anything he wanted too.

Ruth was the better hitter of the two but not by much. I don't think we will ever see a player dominate baseball the way Bonds and Ruth did. Never again.

If you go back into time to 1920, (think of bonds pre 1993)Bonds would have never hit 73 home runs, heck he probably would be a player that hit 250-300 home runs, with 600-700 stolen bases that had a high double/triple and walk rate. He still would have been a complete player....times have changed.

I still come back to Bill russell. He could have put up better personal stats, but he let others around him do a lot of it. Wilt put up the big numbers, Bill won all the titles (and utterly dominated come playoff time).

oscar robertson. nobody threw up triple doubles like the O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japirish15

oscar robertson. nobody threw up triple doubles like the O

---

Scary to think what that guy could have done with a decent team around him. He probably finishes with more than a few rings if, for example, Lew Alcindor isn't sent to the Lakers.

Bill Russell

Career highlights and awards
12x NBA All-Star (1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)
5x NBA MVP (1957, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964)
3x All-NBA First Team (1958, 1962, 1964)
8x All-NBA Second Team (1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1967)
1x NBA All-Defensive Team (1968)
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team

Jordon, no doubt about it.